About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
and people might decide, given the range of alternative appointments, maybe she's not -- john kerry might be a worse secretary of state. so, maybe, one goes ahead and lets him have the secretary of state he wants or one vote against it, as senators will say she was not forthcoming, obviously in september and should have known better than to say what she said, and vote against it but since democrats control the senate i'm assuming she'll get confirmed. >> chris: what is wrong with john kerry as secretary of state. obviously he is not who you would appoint but as a democratic... >> susan rice is more interventionist than john kerry. he's the guy who has been against -- every we're, the first gulf war, and, the iraqi war, he was against it and i think susan rice might go along with juan and say, the light footprint thing is not working out so well and not having presence in libya and not intervening in syria... >> chris: push for the intervention of -- >> yes, and, it's not my administration, not my choice but if one thinks, it is incredibly dangerous moment, thanks to the light footprint, a
's an easy pick, pick john kerry, the republicans like one of their own, he's a senator. they also have a political interest in that. if john kerry is elevated to a cabinet position, they eventually has to be a vote in a special election, scott brown just loss. there's a lot of press going on in addition to the president having to make a tough policy choice. >> thank you very much. john king reporting. republicans on capitol hill keep asking the president to show them where he wants to cut not just who he wants to tax. joining us now is the number three man in the senate republican leadership, senator john thune of south dakota. senator, thanks very much for coming in. >> good afternoon, wolf. >> before i get to the fiscal cliff and the taxes, spending cuts, are you ready to make an announcement on how you would vote as far as confirmation of susan rice is concerned if the president nominated her to be secretary of state? >> i'm not ready to make that determination right now. but i do think that her meetings up here have raised lots of questions. and there are more reservations about he
of them. in addition to ambassador rice, some have suggested the president considering senator john kerry. national security adviser tom donilon and on the short list as well, i want to bring in doug brinkley to join us. first of all, thank you very much. put this in perspective, if you have. we've seen this develop over the last couple of days and even the last couple of hours. the critics are not satisfied at all with what they are hearing. is there a point, is there a time now when perhaps the administration is thinking, cut their losses, this is not necessarily the right nominee? >> i would hope that that rubicon occurred today when senator collins turned her back on rice, that was not a good omen for rice becoming secretary of state. it's been a lot of testing and trial balloons making confirmation hearing. she very possibly likely could. but it will be a bruised affair and i'm not sure our country needs that right now. she's a fantastic american, great diplomat, but might be better working in the white house since president obama admires her so much as national security adviser. joh
or john kerry or someone else, there will be questions about a new internationalism, not a liberal intervention that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention and rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the problems of our time like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, hunger and how to lead to a global economic policy. it's issues we have not done a good job in dealing with, nor will it. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military. the pentagon is well funded. your regional commander could go out. i agree with your critique. the way to get to the source of the critique is not that, you know, susan rice or anybody else doesn't understood what you said. it's to follow the money and give the u.s. the tools. >> shouldn't we rethink where the money goes? one of the reasons diplomatic security is underfunded. the cuts between the state department. the balance between state, diplomacy an
that in any confirmation hearing, whether it's susan rice or john kerry, there will be questions raised about a new internationalism. one that is not a neoliberal or liberal interventionism that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention. but about rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the major problems of our time, like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, hunger and how america can lead a global economic recovery. these are issues liberal interventionism has not done a good job dealing with. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military solution because the pentagon is well funded and your regional commander has much more ability to go out and act on behalf of the u.s. than the ambassador does. so i agree with your critique, but the way to get to the source of the critique is not that susan rice doesn't understand, but it's to follow the money and -- >> but should we rethink our priorities
rice might be intersvennist than john kerry who's the other potential nominee and maybe take susan rice instead of john kerry. >> when you think of the dynamics on capitol hill and the relationship when from capitol hill to the white house, i mean, what impact do you think a bruising battle over susan rice would be and the other things they're running on? >> exactly. i mean, you know, you could have a three-ring circus or cut down one of the rings and push it to the side and you have got the fiscal cliff going on. you've got issues that have to do with egypt, foreign aid to egypt. you have gaza. why do you want to have another ring there? and start dealing with this confirmation battle which is as wolf pointed out earlier the optics of a confirmation battle with susan rice. african-american woman. two groups that the republican party did not do very well with i might add in the last election. >> acknowledging they need to do better. >> i don't mean to impugn john mccain or lindsey graham for criticizing her. i think they have their reasons and nothing to do with anything other than beng
go for an easier option, and that would be senator john kerry of massachusetts. he's someone who could, relatively speaking, glide through the senate with ease compared to susan rice at this point. it all depends on how benghazi shapes up. if it's looking like there's not going to be a big investigation, then susan rice looks like the more likely option. it all depends on how big of a fight he wants in the senate. rick: how wig of a story -- how big of a story do you think it is going to turn out to be, bebb ghazi? -- benghazi? i've heard people compare it to watergate given that no one died from watergate. as we take a look at what we know, what information we have available to us, what do you think is the potential here with this story? >> it depends because we've got a split congress. in the senate, it's run by democrats. they were having closed-door investigations last week, and a lot of democrats told me that they saw this as something that would be difficult to get to the bottom of, full of vague information and, you know, this whole fog of war thing. will we ever really kn
. after the benghazi debacle i heard more it would be john kerry because a lot of people rightly recognized that sending susan rice up there would turn it into a benghazi circus where everyone will want to be talking about benghazi. we had the press conference where the president, he's clearly very dug in on this. when i say it's arrogant, it's clear that he has just either complete contempt for the media, or just believes that he can just do whatever he wants because the idea that he would send her up there, put her under oath and have her be forced to answer these questions, and i think mccain is right, it's not about susan rice it's about the president. but he's going to put her in the line of fire. i think it just shows arrogance. it's him basically saying, look we clearly misled people, nobody seems to care so i'm going to just send her up there. martha: do you believe he intends to do that, that nothing has changed or he's been emboldened in recent weeks? >> i really read that press conference to mean he's going to nominate her. i've asked around, i don't think anybody know
with restraint when you're motion is to do otherwise? >> senator mccain. >> john kerry has been very active in this issue. i think it will require a presidential push to convince a few. i think it's important that we move forward with that. just one additional thing. as i mentioned, and as we know, the world is so rapidly changing. the unpredictability of the world is the one thing but i think we would all agree on. look at the world, as i mentioned last night, the first time we convened here and look at it today. what will it be like four years from now darks we don't know. we have no real idea. anyone who predicted the world four years ago would like -- would be like this today, i would like to meet year. -- i would like to meet yuo. we need common principles of international behavior. we have to stick to those principles. all of us, at least during the cold war, we lived in a very predictable world. we did. we knew the divisions and capabilities. we do not know what's going to happen. i don't know what will happen in china. i tell believe that 1.3 billion people are going to be satisfied
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9